Revamping The Periodic Table?

vinohradska writes "There is an interesting article on the periodic table over at Slate: 'Oxford ecologist Philip Stewart has designed a new periodic table of the elements, and it's a hit. American schools are placing orders daily for Stewart's table, and the Royal Society of Chemists recently sent a copy to every British secondary school. Stewart's is the only remake to achieve widespread adoption since Dmitri Mendeleev invented the original periodic table in a fit of brilliance in 1869.' "

An image of the chart.

[XorNand (517466)]

Since the painfully brief article buries the most relevant piece of this story 5 pages into a linked slideshow: An image [wikimedia.org] of the chart in question.

::curmudgeony voice:: Dunno... certainly looks prettier, but at quick glance I can gather a lot more information from an "old school" chart.

Re:An image of the chart.

[MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963)]

I actually much prefer Stewart's reconstruction of the 50's art exhibit which led to his "galaxy of elements" thing:

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/2093564/21 22917/2122918/2122942/Longman.jpg/ [msn.com]

But above it all I prefer the current table by far.

Re:An image of the chart.

[sp3tt (856121)]

You have a trailing slash too much there, the correct link is:
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/2093564/21 22917/2122918/2122942/Longman.jpg [msn.com]

The concept of "preference"

[oneiros27 (46144)]

Most people's preferences are to stay with the things that they already know, and what they're familiar with. (except in mating, but that's a whole 'nother issue).

I like the old chart because all of the detail is right there with the element -- I don't have to go and look at the chart along the right side of the page to get all of its details. But ... could this be a better form for someone who isn't already familiar with the periodic table that we've grown up with? Is it easier for children to understand?

Yes, the whole 'galaxy' thing is most likely to get children interested in science. They'd have probably worked a dinosaur in there, too, if someone hadn't pointed out that it'd then be sexist, and appeal to boys more than girls, but if it gets the kids interested, and maybe they then move to what we think of as the 'normal' periodic table (being that it's much more dense with its information), it doesn't really hurt anyone.

It just makes it so that the kids won't get jokes like the Periodic Table of Condiments [backtable.org] quite as quickly. (of course, the folks who made it didn't understand the Periodic Table of Elements, or they'd have placed similarly behaving items in a column, with the most reactive elements towards the edges, except for the far right column for things that never go bad)

Re:An image of the chart.

[tek.net-ium (841449)]

Indeed, I can't see any practicing engineer or scientist finding any use for this thing. It's also a bad idea for instruction, because it's a gross oversimplification of the distribution of the elements in the universe. The periodic table is useful, because it's complete and accurate, but this is not. There are already several [periodictable.com] other [earthlink.net] period tables [wikipedia.org] with more instructional or historical value.

Re:An image of the chart.

[tek.net-ium (841449)]

How is the existing periodic table not a gross oversimplification if this new one is?

This periodic table doesn't show relationships within the groups of elements cleanly, which is best done in a tabular form, instead of a linear spiral form. It also seems to be conveying the confused idea of chemicals being somehow distributed in a galaxy.

As far as I can tell, the new one(s) are entirely complete and accurate. Moreso, they actually are organized in a way that can be extended. The existing periodic table is only complete because of the footnotes, extensions and other non-obvious changes required to stuff all of that extra didn't-know-it-existed-at-the-time information into it.

What footnotes and extensions? Like adding a property stating the exact atomic radius or atomic weight? I have a periodic table that lists 8 properties for every element, but I really only use the periodic table for the atomic weights, since the other information I rarely use can easily look up with a computer.

The new one isn't only pretty, it's totally logical in an absolutely obvious way.

It's pretty because they put a galaxy in the backdrop? I guess if that's the case, I could make the old one sexy by putting a picture of a hot girl in the background or angry if a drew a picture of a face with eyebrows pointing towards the nose. It's not logical; chemically there's a huge difference between flourine and sodium, but this new periodic spiral doesn't effectively convey that. Hell, they even lined up hydrogen with carbon.

Re:An image of the chart.

[StarsAreAlsoFire (738726)]

The more you learn about chemistry the more the current form makes sense. This piece of crap is just more visual trash will inhibit real learning in school.

Although, perhaps I could tear this 'new version' to peices even better if there were a version I could actually SEE posted somewhere on the net. There are fuzzy low-res versions all over the place, but not a one that I can really study.

There are DOZENs if not HUNDREDS of different table formats. I doubt that this one is even moderatly new, excepting perhaps the irrelevant backdrop. The layout depends on what is of interest; a astrophysics professor might have one that accentuates the electron energy states, whereas a chemical engineer might have a chart which accentuates the prevailence of an element in nature.

The current form is incredibly logical. Purly logical. Proton count increases from top-left to bottom right. Happens to correspond to about a half dozen different patterns. God, I can't even think of all the variables that our simple, standard table shows. There is SO much information packed into it. Even if you stripped out everything but the symbol the current table would convey a staggering amount of information. This new table? Mmmm.... not so much.

As for your last comment: It *IS* worse. Because eventually it will have to be discarded and students will have to learn to use the 'normal' periodic table. Sure it will be easier than if they had never heard of elements and protons etc before, but they won't be familiar with it. They will be slower with its use, and more easily frustrated. And public schools are famous for leaving out details that a teacher 'doesn't feel is important'. I tutored college chemistry: anything which adds to confusion without benifit is very bad. There is just too much new information to convey in a short time to have to add yet something else.

All of that said, I read the article hoping to find something which IS better and more intuitive. I believe one could be made which would be better suited to 'general use'; e.g. the casual chemist: the engineer type that looks to a table once in a while to calculate combustion energies, or for the student of general inorganic chemistry. Was bummed to see that POS.

Re:An image of the chart.

[dwhitman (105201)]

If he were dead, Tufte [edwardtufte.com] would be rolling in his grave. This thing is simultaneously an incredible example of chartjunk and low information density.

The image of the galaxy is what Tufte calls a "duck" - a decorative style element that dominates a chart without conveying useful information. The color coding is also chartjunk; it conveys nothing that isn't already implicit in an element's location in the chart. Most of the ink in this graphic (galaxy, color fills) conveys zero information.

It gets worse. To keep from obscuring the cute galaxy picture, the designer shrank the atomic numbers to an illegible point size, and then threw away useful data (like atomic weight, electronic configuration and common oxidation states, all of which fit into a rather smaller chart than this which is hanging on my wall.)

Re:What the question marks?

[cagle_.25 (715952)]

In principle, the chart could spiral out forever. In practice, it can't because large nuclei (reflected by large atomic numbers) tear themselves apart with Coulombic (electrical) forces. The question marks are elements that either haven't yet been made (e.g., #113) or haven't yet been named (e.g., #118 -- although there's some controversy about whether it has been made)

Re:An image of the chart.

[cagle_.25 (715952)]

That is correct. #113, 115 are undiscovered. #114, 116, 118 are un-named, unless it turns out that the data supporting their discovery was indeed incorrect [lbl.gov], in which case they are also undiscovered.

WRONG

[autopr0n (534291)]

No, modern charts have all the elements that can exist on them, the 'gaps' are there because lighter elements only have a few valence electrons. For example, hydrogen and helium are very far apart on the table, but actualy they only differ by one electron. And since Hydrogen has one extra electron, it is grouped with lithium, sodium, potasium, etc. Helium has 'all' it's electrons so it gets grouped with neon, xenon, argon, etc.

There's still spaces to to add onto at the end for elements like Unununium w

Re:WRONG

[shawn(at)fsu (447153)]

Whaher or not there are gaps now, there were gaps at one time. Things like 110 all thought not being discoverd were predicted given the periodic nature.

Then again, I only took up to Chem II in college so take that with a gran of NaCl2 no Na2Cl no I mean 2NaCl.... you know what I mean.

(almost) RIGHT

[TheLetterPsy (792255)]

Hydrogen and Helium differ also by one proton and two neutrons.

Atomic H: 1 P, 1 e
Atomic He: 2 P, 2 N, 2 e

The reason they are grouped as they are (vertical groupings are really all that matters) is because, in their atomic state, those species have very similar physical properties.

That being said, oxidized Li is *somewhat* similar to He (atomic radius, further reactivity, etc).

IAAC (Chemist)

I'm giving away my age with this post, but...

[The I Shing (700142)]

I trust this won't affect The Elements Song by Tom Lehrer. If you've never heard the song, or haven't listened to it since your high school Chemistry teacher played it for you in class, check out the horribly clever Flash animation of the song [privatehand.com] at privatehand.com.

Re:I'm giving away my age with this post, but...

[cagle_.25 (715952)]

It's better to learn it in groups:

HLiNaKRbCsFr
BeMgCaSrBaRa
FClBrIAt
HeNeArKrXeRn

All of which can almost be pronounced as "words" and were easy for my students to remember.

Re:I'm giving away my age with this post, but...

[operagost (62405)]

Geez. Don't forget to add a KLAATU BARADA NIKTO at the end to awaken the dead.

I don't like it.

[jandrese (485)]

The writeup mentioned that the chart had been bought by several schools, but I'm willing to bet that most of them are just putting them on the wall because they're pretty and sort of educational. The tiny dots for each element are going to be a lot harder to read (and stick additional information in) than a regular boxy chart.

Frankly, I liked the 1950s chart after it better. There was a certain beauty in the layout of that chart. The new chart is pretty much just the elements spiraled across a picture of a galaxy.

Re:I don't like it.

[wolfgang_spangler (40539)]

Frankly, I liked the 1950s chart after it better. There was a certain beauty in the layout of that chart. The new chart is pretty much just the elements spiraled across a picture of a galaxy.

According to Phillip Stewarts website [chemicalgalaxy.co.uk], this chart isn't meant to replace the current chart.

From the website [chemicalgalaxy.co.uk] :

The intention is not to replace the familiar table, but to complement it and at the same time to stimulate the imagination and to evoke wonder at the order underlying the universe.

well, I DO like it

[museumpeace (735109)]

assuming all the other data a typical periodic table [poster sized or wall chart] crams in to each element's box can be added to this depiction.

Don't you see that all the orbital or shells [that make for a confusing notation that chemists painfully memorize and physicists gleefully re-explain with Schroedinger's wave equations that mean nothing to most of us] are made much more intuitive in this representation? This new chart can still give those with no education in atomic physics the intuitive recognition of "what should come next", "what's missing" and "what will weigh more" as the old chart has. Consider that chem teachers are are told to regard as advanced any student who understands this notation[search for "Level 3, the student is able to..." [state.tn.us]. Or considered how labored even a chem101 [frostburg.edu] treatment of this material is.
One thing I will concede: Pauling's notion of "electronegativity", so useful to chemists, was clearly related to location of an element on the standard periodic table [changing most strongly as you traversed diagonally from lower left to upper right]...its not so clear here.

Link to Wikipedia Article

[vinohradska (713189)]

I forgot to mention that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Galaxy [wikipedia.org] is the wikipedia article.

Interesting, but not useful chart

[waynegoode (758645)]

The new table looks interesting and it does give a new perspective, but I don't think it will replace the old periodic table. The main reason is that the "table" is mostly whitespace, or in this case, blackspace. Because of this the symbol for eachelement is written so small that it is hard to read and the other information is relegated to a list on the side. People complain who complain about the inelegance of the current periodic table should complain even louder about this list. It has no structure or elegance; it is just a plian, simple list.

The current list has its flaws, but the elements are organized and structured and there is room for the properties of each element on the chart, not on the side as an afterthought.

Re:Interesting, but not useful chart

[potpie (706881)]

Did you see the illustration on page 6? I think it's obvious that the size of the text could be increased and the amount of blackspace decreased. It would not be hard to draw it yourself in a more readable way. It's not as though that galaxy picture is the only possible way to represent this new table.

Re:Interesting, but not useful chart

[vethia (900978)]

I agree. The new table is a cute exercise in graphic design, but the splayed-out spiral arms make it confusing and difficult to follow if one actually intends to use the table for scientific purposes. Current users of Mendelev's periodic table are also familiar with the patterns it creates, such as the noble gases. Having the rows "end abruptly" as the article claims has a scientific use. The current periodic table makes it easy to pick out certain groups of elements that share vertical similarities, as wel

More Periodic Tables

[Lev13than (581686)]

There's a good collection of periodic tables here [chemistrycoach.com]. Also note that the periodic table referred to in the article is similar to one produced by Thoedor Benfey [maricopa.edu].

Nerd 1: Come on, Mr. Simpson, you'll never pass this course if you don't know the periodic table.
Homer: Ehh, I'll write it on my hand.
Nerd 1: Ho! Including all known lanthanides and actinides? Ha, ha! Good luck.

ObSimpsons

[Marc2k (221814)]

Mrs. Krabappel: Now, on with the Science lesson: who can tell me the atomic weight of Bolonium?
Martin: Ooh ooh ooh! Delicious?
Mrs. Krabappel: Correct. I would also have accepted "snacktacular."

I'm not sold on it

[everphilski (877346)]

The poster looks cool and all, but from a good look at it I'm not sure it preserves all the relationships you learned back in Chem 101. Remember... things like electronegativity? [on a periodic table, as you go up and right things get more electronegative] There is a general trend across the periodic table as we know it; by looking at the table you can observe that flourine is more electronegative than nitrogen, and so on. And s, p, d, f shells are logically laid out. It doesn't seem like a circular chart would be as intuitive.

-everphilski-

Re:I'm not sold on it

[Nasarius (593729)]

My thoughts exactly. Electronegativity, atom size, and orbitals have very definite trends in the usual periodic table. Changing the table without preserving these relationships removes useful information.

Re:I'm not sold on it

[BioCS.Nerd (847372)]

Excellent point everphilski. On the topic of intuitiveness, it seems to me that most people think in terms of rows and columns more easily than circular relationships, at least in our culture (e.g. some cultures think of time as cyclical, versus ours which sees time as linear).

Perhaps someday when we see something like e-paper become more affordable we'll see dynamic tables that change according to the relationship you currently want to view. E.g. the table reorders itself when you want to view elements in terms of melting points, or perhaps by relationship when as super atoms (as described in the article slide show).

Wtf?

[belg4mit (152620)]

How the hell does this article qualify as interesting? And what's the big deal? Some
guy with no clue copies an idea he once saw
to produce a less usable form of one of the
most recognizable/universal data structures
on the planet.

Interesting Points from SlideShow

[hagrin (896731)]

Stewart created his table in part because he remembered being deeply impressed, at the age of 12, by a similar one he saw at the science pavilion of the 1951 Festival of Britain. An impressionistic swirl in vivid colors created by the artist Edgar Longman, the table stood little hope of being adopted by classrooms, but it spurred Stewart to study science. He recalls being struck by nature's underlying order: "I realized that the atoms that make up a galaxy can be arranged in just the same form as the galaxy itself." There's a few points from page 5 of the slideshow that really hit home. 1) First, he basically ripped this idea off from a previous chart built in 1951, modernized, gave it a better "UI" and is now shipping it out to the masses. Sound familiar?

2) On a positive note, I believe that the visual upgrades to the chart (although, will color blind people have any issues getting the full content from the chart now?) will definitely help students remember and learn emelents easier. The visual separation should definitely increase the ability for students to remember how many different colors, how many elemnts per color per spiral, etc. 3) What I think is the most interesting point of all of this is the relation of the elements being able to be tied back together and done so in a shape that mirrors the overall shape of the galaxy. It's sort of like the movie "Pi" where we can see trends, shapes, circles and spirals all within our life and this would be just one more example.

Unobtainium

[infonography (566403)]

Element: Unobtainium [wikipedia.org] Still trying to obtain the atomic weight of that one.

I tried to read the article but....

[rubberbando (784342)]

I kept getting bombarded by a near lethal dose of popupium....

I guess I'll need to inoculate myself with a little firefoxium...

Yawn

[nuggz (69912)]

This is old news.
The "widespread acceptance" is that it got trendy with some high school teachers.

I remember when our HS chemistry teacher (years ago) showed us a few alternate tables to remind us that there are relationships, and that the periodic table isn't just the 2d table at the back of the chemistry textbook.

I like it

[cagle_.25 (715952)]

I teach chemistry, and I like the chart. It conveys a sense of connectedness between both groups and periods. It also conveys the "periodic" nature of the groups much more effectively than the standard chart does, as the elements within a group line up *not* because they've been arbitrarily shoved into place, but because they spiral out to the appropriate location.

Still and all, I will probably have it only as a demo tool. The standard chart is much easier to read. It also shows electron configurations more clearly than the spiral does.

Back in the day

[proverbialcow (177020)]

I remember sitting in high school chem in 1994, thinking that the periodic table would be much better represented as a conical helicoid - a spiral wrapped around a cone.

A few years later I saw a list of known isotopes arranged one element per line and indented based on the weight of the nucleus, with simple hydrogen in the eupper-left corner. The stable isotopes were colored differently, and the color band formed a skewed triangle that would have also wrapped nicely around a cone.

Learning the periodic table...

[creimer (824291)]

The best way to learn the periodic table is to have it printed on the back of a T-shirt that a cute co-ed is wearing. :P

(You have to see the movie Evolution to understand.)

Sex Position Periodic Table

[linuxkrn (635044)]

Sex Position Periodic Table [moviepostershop.com]

Enjoy. :)

Overview, not data...

[Saggi (462624)]

I think one of the most importent aspects of the table is to provide an overview of how the atoms align to eachother.

The table is not a lookup table for atom details of data. There are so many details (protons, weight, melting point, etc...) in regard to each atom, that no table can really display them proberly.

If you are a chemist you will know most of this by heart, so the table is best for teaching the concepts. To provide an overview.

In my opinion the new table do solve some of the issues the old table had. Especially now that it is round, that allows the end collums to meet.

You could almost say; look at the table and tell me how the atom "behvior groups" are like. Now look at the new table, and answer the same question.

In both cases you still need to learn about the "behvior groups"...

The slideshow is a little misleading

[jhw3 (839537)]

No chemists really think that the lanthanides and actinides are "footnotes" in the periodic table. In truth both rows should be inserted under Group 3. We just put them under the table because the first option would make the table too wide.

Hydrogen is difficult to place in a group because it's basically a single proton with a single electron whizzing around it. In fact, in organic chemistry we usually just refer to hydrogen ions as "protons" -- which they are. The element itself has some properties of halogens and some properties of alkali metals, which is why it sometimes gets put in "both" groups.

Practising chemists usually know where the elements they work with lie in the periodic table. Outside of school use, the main use for periodic tables is to quickly find atomic weights (sometimes also electronic configurations or physical properties). Annotated variants of the "old version" are great for this. If this data can't be found quickly, the periodic table is useless.

Not the first remake

[madmancarman (100642)]

While some may say it doesn't qualify as a "remake", Henry Moseley [wikipedia.org]'s work resulted in the reorganization of the periodic table by atomic number, as opposed to Mendeleev's table, which went by atomic weight and chemical properties. Unfortunately, Moseley was killed at the age of 27 while fighting in World War I.

The strange thing is that high school chemistry books that I've taught from treat Mendeleev as a sort of Socrates/demigod figure, yet make no mention of Moseley's contributions, which really advanced chemistry. We wouldn't know anything about the inner workings of the atom if we didn't know and understand atomic numbers.

As for this new poster... it would be something I'd put up on the wall of my classroom to attract attention and give students a new way of looking at the elements, but for any serious work, we'd still have to use the standard periodic table. There's nothing wrong with looking at the elements in a new way, but that doesn't mean it will be useful beyond generating interest in science.

First the food pyramid

[Intron (870560)]

Now the periodic table. Is nothing that I learned in school sacred?

Chemistry Books and Links

[alchemist68 (550641)]

Much about the chemistry of the elements can be obtained from:

Essential Trends in Inorganic Chemistry by D.M.P. Mingos, D. M. P. Mingos

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198 501080/qid=1121871924/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-082468 3-5368037?v=glance&s=books [amazon.com]

and

Chemistry of the Elements by A. Earnshaw, Norman Greenwood

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0750 633654/qid=1121872078/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0824 683-5368037?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 [amazon.com]

It seems harder to read, but prettier

[JimmyStewart (901269)]

There is a lot of whitespace. To be as easy to read as a conventional periodic table, this chart would have to be printed much larger. I'd think that a good graphic designer could take care of much of that problem, however.

I like the spiral nature, although that's a little hard to read as well.

As a scientist and educator, I'd say he's done a good job. As a graphic design, the new table leaves a lot to be desired. I wouldn't fault the author for that, the skills necessary for good science or good teaching don't have much in common with the skills for good design.

much lost functionality

[nasor (690345)]

The traditional periodic table is arranged the way it is for a reason. With an ordinary periodic table, simply looking at an element's position on the table will give you information about its

-electronegativity/electron affinity
-the radius of its electron cloud
-ionization energy
-lattice energy
-valence electron configuration

Maybe there's a way to deduce all that from this new "galaxy" aragnement, but the article doesn't mention it and it's not readily apparent to me.

Re:Good job submitmitter

[Punchinello (303093)]

Nice try jackass. He quoted the article, gave credit to the source and linked to the original location. By any definition, this is not plagiarism.

Re:If it ain't....

[jacksonj04 (800021)]

It's pissing awful. The current one is nice and easy. Groups go down, periods go across.

Re:It is a big gay chart

[stratjakt (596332)]

The guy's an ecologist. The fact that schools are ordering it just shows what's happened to our education system.

They want a more "PC" or enviro-fiendly periodic table, not a more accurate or useful one.

My kids are going through grade school, and on conference with the teacher, I found out that they dont teach math by having the kids do arithmetic problems over and over until it's second nature. They just briefly touch on subjects like multiplaction and division, to "give the kids a sense of it", in the teachers own words, then move on. The entire curriculum is designed so the stupidest kid in america can pass, and therefore feel good about himself.

I don't know if I suddenly became an old crank, but what the fuck? This is the education strategy we've chosen as we dive headlong into the age of technology?

I moved my kids to private school. I figure the cash spent now is much less than having to support a public school "graduate" into my 90s.

Re:Free poster?

[drakaan (688386)]

If you're home-schooling but not giving your kids daily interaction with other kids, you're not doing it right. That's part of school, whether at home, or on a public campus. That's why you get grades for "plays well with others" in elementary school.

Re:Free poster?

[Doctor Memory (6336)]

Out where I used to be from (Oregon), the main reason to home-school kids was to give them intense religious indoctrination, and little else. I once overheard a home-schooled girl who, when asked a simple history question (what was the Louisiana Purchase, I believe), stated "That's not in the Bible, I don't have to know that."

Chilling.

Re:Free poster?

[surprise_audit (575743)]

And if their State Dept of Education catches up with her parents, they'll be in trouble. There's a certain curriculum you're supposed to conform to, if I recall correctly. We looked into the possibility of home-schooling for our daughter when the empire-building little dictator of the local elementary wouldn't accept several independant medical evaluations about her special needs. In a state where the average number of special needs kids is around 8%, somehow his school of 700 kids had none at all... But I'm ranting, and the guy has moved on, and the school caved when we talked to the State Board of Education and said the magic words "due process hearing"...